Legislative restriction of freedom of expression - Information legislation as a model

Abstract

In the beginning, the criminal law was limited to common law crimes that people composed within their social environment, such as murder and fire, but this law went beyond the limits of that narrow circle, and moved to a broader environment with the development of the group and its needs, the complexity of its means to obtain them, the concentration of its population, and the overlap of Their relationships, their intertwining, the diversity of its forms, and the increasing opportunities for them to gain access to scientific facts in the light of which the forms of crime, its tools and ways of concealing it vary. Hence the need for balanced legal standards that control the pace and methods of these crimes, the most prominent of which are crimes related to freedom of expression using cyberspace. There is no reason to believe that the meaning of the organization is incompatible with freedom, since the achievement of a specific social organization presupposes the necessity of using freedom. And if the legislator in general intervenes and sets the legal rule regulating freedom, it does not make it always binding, but rather allows freedom to agree on what contradicts it. It is also natural that freedom will not be absolute without limits or censorship, as this would lead to the denial of the principle of social organization and its feasibility, and if the law must guarantee the expression of complete freedom or at least sufficient freedom, but the regulatory aspects must be taken into account. that adapts the response to the concept of freedom. In fact, when private interests conflict and conflict, they do not lead to the achievement of the common good, but rather create discord and conflict, which requires confronting the resulting abuses with a share of legislative intervention within a set of balanced criteria.